Environmental Activism As Collective Action - Environment And: Fill & Download for Free

There are two primary reasons that the image of anti-environmentalism has stuck to the modern GOP. And yes, by the way, the fact is that by and large the attitude and policies promoted by the GOP don't do much to protect the environment anymore (I say anymore, since it's only really in the last 25-30 years that this became true of GOP policies).First and probably most responsible of all for this impression, is the fact that the economic policies and outlook of the modern Republican Party tends to focus vastly more on short-term than long-term concerns. So it is that, put simply, the choice between the long-term safety of the environment and planet matter less to them than the short-term issue of profit margins, industry growth, and exploiting resources for economic gain. It's a very hardline, extremist approach to libertarian economic policies that oppose regulation, that oppose business restrictions based on environmental concerns, that oppose pretty much everything the EPA or OSHA stand for or try to do. If they could achieve 100% deregulation of all industry, most of this block of extreme conservatives would do so, no matter how much pollution it pumps into the air and water and food.We can see what this world would look like, because it's existed before -- it's called the 19th Century, when children worked in mines and workers couldn't organize and waste could be dumped right into the water supplies for workers and so on. We also can see it around the world, in all of those nations with little or no restrictions on business to protect the environment -- those places so many big industries and companies flock to, precisely because they can do whatever they want to anyone without regulations, and it's what they'd do right here to all of us if they were allowed to do so.And they generally promote their perspective to the average voter by simply asking the public, "What are you really more worried about, protecting some owls or protecting your job and your family's prosperity?" When faced with the false, simplistically mischaracterized choice between protecting other animals or protecting their family and their livelihood, the truth is that an awful lot of people -- especially the more short-sighted who don't bother to pay enough attention to see that their family's long-term comfort and safety depends on protecting the environment -- will say, "screw the owls, I'd rather keep my job." Or "screw the whales" or whatever animal or habitat happens to be being destroyed this particular hour.The other main reason for this change in GOP policy toward the environment is that rightwing religious elements who have largely dominated the modern GOP have pursued policies and attitudes that are broadly anti-science and anti-"knowledge" -- there is a very palpable contempt for "too much" education, being too "smart" or "elitist" etc -- and those attitudes extend to things like denying Global Warming, mixed with a general lack of serious concern about the environment or Earth because they think God made it for us to use as we want. And the faster the world degrades, the closer it gets us to the likely "End-Times" anyway, which this particular rightwing religious block eagerly awaits.So, this modern GOP policy is frankly what you get when you combine people whose economic views favor getting rid of regulations to promote business and profit over environmental protections and safety, and people who don't care about the environment because they are suspicious of pointy-headed egg-heads with "facts" and "knowledge" claiming Climate Change that really doesn't matter anyway because it'll all be fixed by magic when God comes down and rescues the righteous. Then throw in more ordinary people who just make the simple selfish choice if and when they have to vote either for someone who swears to protect jobs over environment, verses someone who might change things in a way that could threaten jobs that depend on exploiting the environment.And there you have a poisonous recipe that's come to define modern GOP sentiment and policy on the environment.Now, is the GOP's approach honestly all that different from the actual actions and accomplishments of the Democrats? We can talk about NAFTA, the WTO, and all of the compromises and choices the Democratic like Clinton made that vastly sped up environmental degradation and mainstreamed some bad policies that previously the Democratic Party hadn't been willing to accept. We could discuss Al Gore's instrumental role in helping gut the Marine Mammal Protection Act to bring U.S. policy more in line with WTO demands. And so on. But that's another discussion, so for now I'll just stick to the ways the GOP has demonstrated lack of care for the environment, and I guess we can talk another time about the ways the Democratic Party has largely demonstrated their own lack of care for the environment. Suffice to say, there's lots of blame to go around, the GOP just tends to be more raw and blatant about it, and their followers actually support those policies rather than being upset about it or looking the other way as if it's not happening.UPDATE: I posted the following in response to Gary's answer, but it also goes a long way toward likewise addressing some claims made in other answers seeking to challenge the question's basic premise. So, I'm adding it here to my own answer as a rebuttal that I think largely debunks any claim that there isn't honestly, seriously, demonstrably far less concern about the environment among the GOP and GOP voters in general, to the point that it could reasonably be said to give a strong appearance of lack of much care about the environment...... Polling data of conservatives, conservative activists, GOP voters, and religious evangelicals all consistently show the same thing: that environmental protect is not just a low priority among those groups, but that in fact they tend to be openly hostile to regulations for protecting the environment, tend to disbelieve climate change science, and tend to be more supportive of policies that ignore environmental concerns and even that actively demonstrably increase environmental dangers. This is born out in studies not just from mainstream polling outlets, but in fact from conservative polling data including religious organization polling and conservative groups polling.Some examples: 48% of conservative activists believe the Bible is the *literal* word of God, and rank the environment low on their list of concerns. Only 13% of conservative activists felt there should be more environmental protection. 74% of libertarians, 74% of Tea Party members, 65% of White Evangelicals, and 62% of Republicans overall oppose increasing environmental laws. This data is from the Public Religion Research Institute.Meanwhile, Gallup found that 70% of conservatives disbelieve that Climate Change is currently happening, almost the same percentage (67%) of conservatives believe the media exaggerates or the seriousness of the issue.I just don't feel there's much point in denying what is rather blatantly obvious -- that yes, most GOP voters and especially most conservative base voters, don't consider the environment to be a major priority, most disbelieve climate change is even happening let alone that humans cause it, most oppose environmental laws and regulations to better protect the environment, most take negative views of efforts at environmental conservation when it remotely conflicts with economic development or even just their own personal behavior and preferences (fishing, hunting in certain areas, etc), and most oppose attempts to include environmental protections in global trade agreements.This isn't fantasy, it's demonstrable in GOP policy, in GOP rhetoric, in voting habits, in literal direct assertions by GOP candidates and voters, in polling data time after time (which by the way, compared against similar polling data from years before, shows that these conservative attitudes about the environment have intensified year after year), and in the conservative press's coverage and discussion of issue about the environment and climate change.The question isn't "Are there also some folks who are independents or who are Democrats who also have some bad or lukewarm views about the environment," it's whether overall there is evidence to strongly suggest and/or prove that the general attitude among the GOP is one of less to no concern about the environment, and the data pretty clearly shows that to be the case. I don't think there's any good to come from denying those realities.[Regarding the idea that fracking and nuclear energy represent GOP support for protecting the environment...] Fracking is terrible for the environment and for communities, and the effects have been well documented. Internal memos from some companies engaged in fracking show that they in fact have conducted internal studies that determined they were likely responsible for all manner of environmental degradations, including for example the infamous leaked internal documents showing a fracking company determined they were probably responsible for increased earthquakes in some regions. Likewise, the waste of water, the toxic chemicals used in fracking leaking into soil and water, and other major environmental damage points to the need to limit fracking, but the GOP and conservative activists and corporations consistently defend it despite the obvious harm it causes -- further adding to the body of evidence regarding overall lack of adequate concerns about the environment among Republicans and conservatives.Likewise, nuclear power has potential but only if we idealize the context -- the reality, though, is made plain in Fukushima, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and the many other consistent yet little-covered/discussed accidents within the nuclear power industry. Bloomberg in fact published this article two days ago: World Needs to Get Ready for the Next Nuclear Plant AccidentHere's a good list of notable nuclear incidents:List of notable civilian nuclear accidentsHere's a rather disturbing collection of links to different sorts of expanded consideration of the broader nuclear industry, since with civilian nuclear power come all the related additional industries and applications that we have to account for as well:Lists of nuclear disasters and radioactive incidentsThere is a lot of actual danger involved in the nuclear industry. The potential damage from a bad nuclear accident dwarfs the potential danger from other sorts of energy accidents, so even though in direct comparisons there is a higher number of accidents in other energy industries, a single major nuclear incident can with one foul stroke exceed the damage and dangers of all those other industries. Cleaning up Fukushima is $200 billion and counting, and is probably a 40-year endeavor, for example. That's not counting the long-term consequences of the radiation released into the world (especially the tons of radioactive water dumped constantly into the ocean for the last few years) and the associated health costs it's likely to have, the impact on fishing, tourism, film industry, etc.As the Bloomberg piece discusses, a major problem with nuclear energy is that when major accidents have occurred (one major catastrophic event every 11.5 years), there has been an "inability to contain" the events so that they "escalated into global disasters with huge economic, environmental, and political consequences."Worldwide, nuclear energy is escalating quickly, in many regions lacking the degree of safeguards and protections and industry standards that exist in the U.S. and some other nations. Thus the warning that we must prepare for a major nuclear accident in the world sometime soon -- and when that happens, does anybody want to imagine how bad it might be, whether it could be a "China Syndrome" level incident, and answer the question, "Was it worth the gamble to the entire planet, to let this industry continue apace?" There has to be some attention to the fact that when we take risks, the possible payoff and likely costs need to favor the positive side and the negative consequences don't include the potential for mass death and global destruction.The nuclear industry isn't yet safe enough for mass investment, we're going to pay enormous costs in the near future precisely due to that inadequate level of safety, and part of the problem is precisely the refusal of so many in the GOP to demand tougher regulations and environmental standards in global trade agreements and for energy industries in general.Oh, and add to that the fact that promotion of building a lot more nuclear plants alongside expansion of fracking that causes increased dangers of destabilization leading to quakes, and there's some more reason to point to why these policies are bad, particularly when taken together and promoted as if they represent a supposed example of GOP "environmentalism."The GOP has lost connection to its once-proud history of rational, serious stands in support of the environment (and on other issues as well, but that's a separate discussion) as represented by Teddy Roosevelt. Pointing to him [as some other answers have done, in attempts to suggest the GOP actually cares a lot about the environment] in fact merely serves to highlight just how far the GOP has gone in the opposite direction.

When I visited Japan a few years back, I was puzzled and mildly annoyed at the lack of rubbish bins in public places. It was a bit strange to have to keep rubbish with me, especially when it’s a wet cold drink container, until I could get back to my backpacker. But I was also very impressed by how clean Japan is, without an army of cleaners and abundant signs warning of a hefty fine for littering as seen in Singapore. Two questions kept nagging me: why don’t they have rubbish bins and how do they manage to keep their cities so clean without them?“Mangetsu-man” (Mr. Full Moon), a costumed mascot with a full moon for a head, cleans Tokyo’s Nihonbashi Bridge in 2014. (Japan Today)I only found out the answers recently and they are both quite illuminating. It turns out that public waste bins were largely removed from Japanese cities following the 1995 Aum Shinrikyo sarin gas attacks. Unlike London, Paris and New York, which implemented similar actions temporarily after terrorist attacks, in Japan, the rubbish bins are gone permanently.Yet, not only is Japan very clean, it also produces only half the amount of domestic waste per capita of the U.S and recycling rates that leave other countries in the dust (although to not idealize Japan too much, for some reason, they burn a large fraction of the recycled waste for energy). In the last two World Cups, the Japanese fans amazed the world by staying behind to pick up rubbish from the stadium. Similar things happen at Japanese music festivals. Instead of leaving an ocean of trash behind like many other countries, Japanese people keep it clean and orderly.This is certainly an achievement. With Japan’s rapid industrialization in the post-war years, waste started to become a major problem. Tokyo produced so much waste that it was running out of landfill space. A series of waste management laws in the 1990s targeted the problem, introducing strict recycling laws and clamping down on what could go into landfill. Instead of relying on passive education and information campaigns, putting the responsibility to stop littering on individuals, fining and shaming offenders by making them clean a public place, Japan encourages people to take an active part of keeping the environment clean.The results have been impressive. Take Yokohama for example. When they implemented a new environment campaign in 2000, public servants visited thousands of waste collection sites to assist residents with waste sorting guidance. In only 7 years (2000-2007), Yokohama managed to reduce its waste by 30%. It’s been so successful that the city has closed two of its incineration plants and saved US$30 million.But it goes beyond strict rules. Japan mostly relies on voluntary cleaning and waste sorting. Japan treats litter and waste as an asset, as something not to be discarded but strategically used and reused. Different types of waste are picked up on different days, the correct category of waste must be put into specific clear see-through garbage bags and the wrong type of bags are not accepted. Although the standard is 5, some towns have even up to 40 categories of waste!A strong civic ethic has taught people to respect and keep the environment clean. There is voluntary community monitoring in local areas and neighbourhoods hold regular street-cleaning events. The local governments clean only a few major roads and the rest of the roads are cleaned by residents and volunteers. Around 08:00, office workers and shop staff clean the streets around their place of work. Cleaning is not outsourced to contractors, it is everyone’s job. It saves the government money and instills in people a sense of community, equality and respect for public space and manual labour.The Japanese education on environmental issues, especially waste reduction, is very comprehensive. Young children are taught at a young age that cleaning is a necessary part of a healthy lifestyle. There are comprehensive environmental textbooks for schools to educate school children on waste management and disposal. All schools incorporate cleaning and separation of waste as part of school daily activities. Students clean their classrooms and restrooms, gyms, floors. This gives them a sense of attachment and ownership of the school. It also teaches them the value and pride in one’s labour, discipline and collaborative team-work.Japanese schools even organise site visits to waste management facilities to teach kids the importance of a cleaner’s job. These jobs are seen as honourable and productive, not as embarrassing and low-status like in many other countries. At school events held outside the school premises, school children are required to clean up the sites after the event to make them even cleaner than before. They also volunteer for the monthly community clean, picking up rubbish from the streets near their school.Littering is a moral hazard: once it happens, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, and a little bit of litter will lead to a lot of litter as it visibly erodes people’s sense of communal responsibility. By reinforcing these ideals from a young age and encouraging and honoring active cleaning, Japan is showing us how to throw this problem in the dustbin of history.A comparative study of littering and waste in Singapore and Japan - [PDF Document]

A market of this sort would acknowledge its own context- that is, that it is embedded and and dependent upon material and social inputs from the environment and the society in which it runs. It would also acknowledge that market outputs depend upon social and environmental sinks to absorb them.Mostly, today’s markets decline to acknowledge their social and environmental contexts, probably not by accident. If resources can be allocated from the surrounding commons without compensation, it’s free! If waste can be dumped there at no cost, that’s free too! More to the point, it’s in the interest of those engaged in that market activity to not have to engage or deal with stakeholders bearing the costs or their actions.Remember, markets are supposed to work by virtue of voluntary interactions, and price signaling- and the stakeholders of the underlying commons (let’s say we’re talking about air and water as common resources) aren’t involved in the transactions that result in pollution, there’s no price put to the resources, and no signaling can occur to tell the market actors that polluting them actually puts costs on the commons- so long as “the market” declines to acknowledge these as considerations.The environment can absorb and process a lot of stuff, in effect provisioning goods and services worth something- wetlands and drainage swales can filter and purify water at a certain rate, plants can fix free carbon from the atmosphere- but again only at a certain rate. Fish in the sea can replenish their own stocks, provided limited harvest pressure and unpolluted habitat. Of course, the oft-referenced ‘tragedy of the commons’ tale doesn’t arise out of these things being in the commons, it arises out of our failure to regulate them as a working commons requires: (For a deeper analysis of this, read Ostrom’s book on the subject [Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (Political Economy of Institutions and Decisions): Elinor Ostrom: 9780521405997: Amazon.com: Books] - for a summary, here: [Governing The Commons])A market solution to climate change would involve the commons being represented as such, having agency and a price for the use of its resources and wealth (and conversely, with resources to pay for improvements to the commons itself). This idea is not new- Pigovian taxes have been understood for generations, but their use is rare.A Pigovian tax (also spelled Pigouvian tax) is a tax levied on any market activity that generates negative externalities (costs not internalized in the market price). The tax is intended to correct an inefficient market outcome, and does so by being set equal to the social cost of the negative externalities. In the presence of negative externalities, the social cost of a market activity is not covered by the private cost of the activity. In such a case, the market outcome is not efficient and may lead to over-consumption of the product. An often-cited example of such an externality is environmental pollution. ~[Pigovian tax]If we understand pollution and over-exploitation of resources to be a market failure, the failure is that the commons are not represented in the market. This is rather a significant omission, something akin to a production of Romeo and Juliet that doesn’t cast any of the Capulets. When that part of the story isn’t connected… what’s supposed to happen there? Well, what tends to happen is this: Where a thing is ‘free’, it is likely to be over-consumed. Where polluting or dumping costs nothing (and disposing of waste responsibly costs something), obviously the framework directs market actors to do the free thing. The play that leaves Juliet and her whole family offstage and out of the story altogether leaves Romeo to his own monologues, and the story will be a very different one for that.One common and important downside to the use of Pigouvian taxes (in which the state stands in as the agent for the commons, and taxes externality-producing behavior at the rate of the cost) is the difficulty of knowing the right price, and the possibility that the incentives and interests of those acting on the state’s behalf might diverge from those of the commons generally. To address this, Elinor Ostrom’s work on Common-Pool-Resource management reveals that there doesn’t need to be a state involved, but there does need to be mechanisms by which stewards of the commons can sanction those who over-exploit or degrade them.So, what would a free market solution to climate change look like? It would look a bit like this:Coal Plant operator: “I would like to burn this coal that I’ve purchased from the coal miners”.Commons: “Fine, it’ll cost you $3/Ton to release that smoke into the atmosphere. We’ll use that to cover costs it creates.”Coal Plant operator: “This makes my business model more expensive than solar and wind and natural gas and hydro”.Commons: “Until we started charging you prices, we were paying those costs and more. If that doesn’t make market sense to you, well… it didn’t make sense to us either to let you do it for free.”If the use of the commons incorporates the costs put to them, actors in the market will have incentives to avoid those costs. Conversely, if there’s compensation to be had for improving the commons, it will be improved.